The fine tuning argument

[Ichneumonwasp]

It's not a non issue. "Why is the universe like it is?" is a valid question. "just because" which is what the "due to chance" argument boils down to is not a very useful answer. One attack line is to introduce the concept of more universes (sure it was very unlikely but with so many universes it was bound to happen sooner or later). Another attack line is to introduce a designer. Another is to argue that there is some law which forces physical constants to be the way they are (which then follows on by trying to work out why that should be the case).

It is a valid question for understanding the factors that play into the evolution of the universe.

It is not a valid question as it is commonly used -- as a proof of God's existence -- because when used in that way, it is a circular argument. It assumes, up front, a particular outcome -- this universe -- and then asks the question, "what are the odds?". It uses the fact that the odds are so low to "prove" that the most likely answer is a designer. But, when the argument begins with a purpose -- this universe as the outcome -- it already presupposes purposful action, or a designer (something that would produce this universe).

When no particular outcome is assumed, the means of using this argument for proof of God vanishes.

 

[Gate2501]

The conditional(we exist) probability of us observing a universe which allows us to exist, is 1.

/argument over?

 

[PixyMisa]

It's a bit hard to come up with a universe where the majority of it can support life.

Not at all. I can do it easily. I have done it.

I supose you could somehow set up an intial big bang to generate heavy elements and then play with the cosmological constant and gravity to produce a sort of air filled universe but there would be a shortage of energy sources and larger lifeforms would tend to risk explodeing or turning collapseing into black holes.

Of course, all this is imposing constraints upon the creator, which tells us something about the creator. Well, if you assume that there is a creator.

You also have the problem that you risk generateing Gödel lambdadust and all the closed timelike curves issues.

We'll just vacuum afterwards.

 

[fls]

I'll have to disagree with you here. Not all observations have this appearance. Some things appear to be random and chaotic.

"Random and chaotic" would appear to be the most finely tuned of all. Each movement would require its own equation.

At any rate, I don't see any physicists arguing against the idea that our universe is finely tuned to produce interesting structures.

I have seen arguments that the degree of freedom is 1. However, my point is not that the argument does or doesn't take place, or which answer is valid, but rather that it is essentially the same question as "what is the connection between taking that drug and recovery from this illness?" Yet we don't try to infer God from the latter (or rather we don't try to pretend that it is reasonable to state "I am ignorant therefore God").

Many variables in their models have to be specified precisely for the models to produce anything like our universe. The debate is only about why the constants that their models require have to be constrained so tightly.

How does that differ from the various attempts to model the movements of the lights in the night sky?

I agree that designer carries the baggage of consciousness/choice. I see it as the point of the argument, not a deliberate dishonesty. There are several model parameters that require very precise values imposed by the designers for no reason other than to make it match our perceived reality. I don't see it as an unreasonable conjecture that the reality they are modeling was also specified by an conscious designer.

It is dishonest to pretend that the conjecture reflects anything other than your desire to be the subject of interest, though. It's not anything that can be drawn from the sciency part of the description of the argument.

Linda

 

[Beth]

"Random and chaotic" would appear to be the most finely tuned of all. Each movement would require its own equation.

Only if you want to specify the movement of each particle. Generally, we don't try to model random or chaotic systems to that detail. I don't think it is analogous to the models we're discussing.

I have seen arguments that the degree of freedom is 1. However, my point is not that the argument does or doesn't take place, or which answer is valid, but rather that it is essentially the same question as "what is the connection between taking that drug and recovery from this illness?" Yet we don't try to infer God from the latter (or rather we don't try to pretend that it is reasonable to state "I am ignorant therefore God").

You've lost me here. How is this the same question?

How does that differ from the various attempts to model the movements of the lights in the night sky?

The models we have for that have fixed parameters that are based on observed values such as the mass of the sun and the earth, their distance from each other, the length of the earth's revolution around it's axis and rotation around the sun. I'm not aware of parameters in those models that have to be arbitrarily set without any explanantion for why they must have the values they need in order for the model to match observations? Are you aware of any such arbitrary parameter settings being required for models of the movements of the stars?

It is dishonest to pretend that the conjecture reflects anything other than your desire to be the subject of interest, though. It's not anything that can be drawn from the sciency part of the description of the argument.

Linda

My desire to be the subject of interest? How did you manage to infer that from what I wrote? I didn't think I was the subject of discussion at all.

Also, I never said such a conjecture was anything that could be drawn from the sciency part of the argument. It's one possible hypothesis to explain why the best models we currently have require the fine tuning of multiple parameter values, but it's not the only one. That doesn't seem all that controversial a position to me.

 

[Gate2501]

It's one possible hypothesis to explain why the best models we currently have require the fine tuning of multiple parameter values, but it's not the only one. That doesn't seem all that controversial a position to me.

I really don't like the entire "fine-tuned" terminology, because it leads to semantic debacles like this.

Because the physical constants that we observe in our universe appear to be "fine-tuned" for X to exist(a tautological argument in the first place), they suddenly "require fine-tuning", and some religious nutters take manners a step further and suggest that this must mean that there is a "fine-tuner" with intent, God(s).

Edit: I am not calling you a religious nutter, I am just trying to illustrate how semantics play into this debate.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

If the Universe was "constructed" such that we could not and did not exist, then we would not be here to discuss it. QED.

The rest is window dressing.

 

[Beth]

I really don't like the entire "fine-tuned" terminology, because it leads to semantic debacles like this.

Because the physical constants that we observe in our universe appear to be "fine-tuned" for X to exist(a tautological argument in the first place), they suddenly "require fine-tuning", and some religious nutters take manners a step further and suggest that this must mean that there is a "fine-tuner" with intent, God(s).

Edit: I am not calling you a religious nutter, I am just trying to illustrate how semantics play into this debate.[/QUOTE]

I'm not adverse to using other terminology, but the current situation is that the best models humans have require many parameter values be set to very precise specific values for no particular reason that the designers of those models can identify. Fine-tuning seems a fair description to me, but if you have another suggestion that would avoid the semantic issues and isn't too unwieldy, I'd use it to avoid such misunderstandings.

 

[Almo]

If these sorts of weak arguments are all that are left for people trying to ascertain the existence of god...

 

[Gate2501]

I'm not adverse to using other terminology, but the current situation is that the best models humans have require many parameter values be set to very precise specific values for no particular reason that the designers of those models can identify. Fine-tuning seems a fair description to me, but if you have another suggestion that would avoid the semantic issues and isn't too unwieldy, I'd use it to avoid such misunderstandings.

My bold.

You are still suggesting that it "requires" that the constants "be set". Why not just say "the current situation is that the best models humans have, include many parameter which ARE very precise values for no particular reason that the designers of those models can identify."

These models are based on the constants.

The constants are not based on the models.

 

[Nonpareil]

Basic chemistry. Life needs structures of a certian size to be able to exist in a fairly stable form. Most sets of fundimental constants won't allow for this.

Partially correct. Other sets of constants may allow for other kinds of life.

 

[Beth]

My bold.

You are still suggesting that it "requires" that the constants "be set". Why not just say "the current situation is that the best models humans have, include many parameter which ARE very precise values for no particular reason that the designers of those models can identify.

Okay. How does that change the implication that the parameter values require fine-tuning?

These models are based on the constants.

The constants are not based on the models.

Actually, I think they are. My understanding is that the constant values those parameters are set to were based on the results the models produced. When values for those parameters differed only very very slightly, the resulting universes were totally unlike ours, lacking such things as stars and galaxies.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Okay. How does that change the implication that the parameter values require fine-tuning?

Technically, it doesn't. It eliminates the initial teleological language in which this argument is awash. You've still left behind a remnant by implying that the parameter valuses require "fine-tuning".

The point is that the argument, as it is used to prove the existence of a fine-tuner, should not presuppose the existence of a fine-tuner, which it does and reveals in the language used.

The argument, as it is used to prove the existence of a fine-tuner, is circular.

 

[Beth]

Technically, it doesn't. It eliminates the initial teleological language in which this argument is awash. You've still left behind a remnant by implying that the parameter valuses require "fine-tuning".

The point is that the argument, as it is used to prove the existence of a fine-tuner, should not presuppose the existence of a fine-tuner, which it does and reveals in the language used.

The argument, as it is used to prove the existence of a fine-tuner, is circular.

I agree that it does not prove the existance of a fine-tuner. I don't think anyone in this thread is arguing that it does. But the parameter values DO require fine-tuning by the model builders to end up with a universe like ours. Why do you object to the implication that fine-tuning is required when it is true?

 

[Gate2501]

Okay. How does that change the implication that the parameter values require fine-tuning?

Because:

The very idea that they are fine tuned for X(x can be anything in the universe), is tautological. The entire argument is based on this bunk premise.

Actually, I think they are. My understanding is that the constant values those parameters are set to were based on the results the models produced. When values for those parameters differed only very very slightly, the resulting universes were totally unlike ours, lacking such things as stars and galaxies.

My bold, again.

You are hung up on using loaded language. You are still making an argument that is extrapolated from a tautology.

 

[fls]

Only if you want to specify the movement of each particle. Generally, we don't try to model random or chaotic systems to that detail. I don't think it is analogous to the models we're discussing.

You've lost me here. How is this the same question?

All we're looking at is ways to tie together observations. The lights in the night sky which move together and the lights which move in respect to other lights. The movement of the lights and the falling of an apple. The presence of a symptom and the presence of tainted grain. The presence of tainted grain and the presence of a particular microscopic organism. A dust storm in Africa and a hurricane in Florida. The mass of an electron and beta radiation. If we know the connection, knowing something about one of those things lets you know something about the other.

Apparent fine-tuning is a continuation of this process, a search for the connection between the strength of the association between objects with mass and the strength of the association between charged particles. If we know the value for one, can we know the value for the other?

The models we have for that have fixed parameters that are based on observed values such as the mass of the sun and the earth, their distance from each other, the length of the earth's revolution around it's axis and rotation around the sun. I'm not aware of parameters in those models that have to be arbitrarily set without any explanantion for why they must have the values they need in order for the model to match observations? Are you aware of any such arbitrary parameter settings being required for models of the movements of the stars?

Before we had Newton's gravity and Galileo's and Copernicus' heliocentrism, there were elaborate and detailed explanations for the movement of the lights in the night sky. But other than their movement around the earth, the lights which we now know represent stars and galaxies were unconnected to those we now know represent planets. And falling apples never even entered the equation. So what we had were seemingly unconstrained descriptions of these movements without a way to explain why they followed the patterns they did. Then heliocentrism provided a constraining and unifying explanation. But we could have an accurate description of how the lights moved and how apples fell to earth, and we could recognize that both were relevant to our existence, and that they would behave in an unrecognizable manner if the parameters were changed, without recognizing that there was a straightforward connection between the two. Was it reasonable that all this was considered evidence for a designer?

My desire to be the subject of interest? How did you manage to infer that from what I wrote? I didn't think I was the subject of discussion at all.

Oh come on. People don't want to call it a "designer" because it likes to go around making universes which contain anti-matter. We think this universe is of interest because it contains us, that the designer is interested in us.

Also, I never said such a conjecture was anything that could be drawn from the sciency part of the argument.

Then why is it even part of the fine-tuning discussion if it can't be drawn from the presence of fine-tuning?

It's one possible hypothesis to explain why the best models we currently have require the fine tuning of multiple parameter values, but it's not the only one. That doesn't seem all that controversial a position to me.

Because it isn't a consequence of hypothesizing about fine-tuning. It's a consequence of musing about how to find a sciency-sounding place for God. To bring up the idea of a designer when talking about fine-tuning gives the dishonest impression that it's a hypothesis that could form in the absence of any pre-conceived notions about God.

Also, you and others keep referring to it as an explanation. Yet it isn't an explanation. It doesn't constrain the supposedly fine-tuned constants unless you arbitrarily decide that it would choose to form universes that would be of interest to us. And that merely reflects our own narcissism, not something which can be drawn from our observations.

Linda

 

[geni]

Partially correct. Other sets of constants may allow for other kinds of life.

Not really. Life requires that you be able to form structures over quite a range of sizes and that those structures are stable for non trivial time periods. It also requires energy gradents.

For example if we take our universe and turn down the gravity you wouldn't get any life because you wouldn't get any stars which means you don't get any elements other than hydrogen,helium and lithium.

 

[Beth]

Because:

The very idea that they are fine tuned for X(x can be anything in the universe), is tautological. The entire argument is based on this bunk premise.

Actually, I think the original OP had X as the necessary precursor for our universe existing, not something in the universe. That doesn't strike me as a bunk premise; it seems reasonable to me to hypothesize that our universe was caused by something - you can call it X if you like.

My bold, again.

You are hung up on using loaded language. You are still making an argument that is extrapolated from a tautology.

There is no tautology involved in noticing that our best models require fine-tuning by the humans who create them. It's an extrapolation to assume that the analogous parameters in our physical universe also require similar fine-tuning. That extrapolation may or may not be correct, but it's not a tautology.

 

[Nonpareil]

Not really. Life requires that you be able to form structures over quite a range of sizes and that those structures are stable for non trivial time periods. It also requires energy gradents.

For example if we take our universe and turn down the gravity you wouldn't get any life because you wouldn't get any stars which means you don't get any elements other than hydrogen,helium and lithium.

But this does not preclude the existence of life. Just life as we know it.
And, in any case, this assumes that only one law was changed. Maybe there isn't any gravity at all. Maybe the speed of light isn't constant. Maybe the laws of cause and effect are nonexistent. None of this explicitly states that there cannot be life. Just that life would be different from the life in our universe.

 

[Gate2501]

Actually, I think the original OP had X as the necessary precursor for our universe existing, not something in the universe. That doesn't strike me as a bunk premise; it seems reasonable to me to hypothesize that our universe was caused by something - you can call it X if you like.

The "X" that I referred to was unrelated to the "X" in the OP. I was just putting a variable there, to let you know that fine-tuning is tautological when applied to any observable object/event in the universe, not just human life.

There is no tautology involved in noticing that our best models require fine-tuning by the humans who create them. It's an extrapolation to assume that the analogous parameters in our physical universe also require similar fine-tuning. That extrapolation may or may not be correct, but it's not a tautology.

Perhaps you do not understand the point that I, and others, have made. The idea that the constants of the universe are "fine-tuned" to allow for the existence of an object within that universe, is tautological in nature.

This is the tautology from which you are extrapolating. It is a plain and simple tautology, and no contingency may be extracted from it. Any attempt to use it as a tool of reasoning are entirely absurd, and will lead to equally absurd conclusions.